Talk:Tyler Clementi Foundation

Social Autopsy and Removal of Talk Page Comments

 * Syndicated to the Suicide of Tyler Clementi page as it applies to both.

It appears that an editor has removed my previous submission on this talk page. Talk page edits are not to be reverted irrespective of if you disagree with them, dislike them, or have some other predisposition that would otherwise compel you to think you have the right to remove them. Arguably the author of the discussion text themselves should not even do so for the sake of transparency. Censoring dissenting opinions is corruption at it's most base definition.

The Tyler Clementi foundation, a registered charity backed--to some degree they have not / will not clarify--a failed kickstarter to raise funds to provide a professional doxing service through a website called Social Autopsy. To most of the world the only reason this article, the foundation, or Tyler Clementi is now known is for a charity being involved in an morally ambiguous plot such as Social Autopsy, especially given the fallout of such a thing will include abuse, and lead to real world consequences.

The purpose of Social Autopsy is to doxx targets who are arbitrarily decided, by a secret panel of judges, to be 'cyber bullies' and publish their information online for exposure, harassment, persecution and inevitable brigading. This is one of the most evil Orwellian acts I have personally witnessed a registered charity being involved with. It's notability is unarguably compelling enough, and there are thousands of media articles on the subject to source from.

As the website is still live and still bears this foundation's logo in it's footer, and no clarification has been raised by the foundation explaining its involvement, nor explaining whether the people involved in the project have been dismissed or still are involved with / work for the foundation I see no reason to ignore Social Autopsy and not address it.

Originally I asked that perhaps one of the editors present address Social Autopsy on the article. But now I have misgivings of the neutrality that would yield and instead I suggest that for neutrality sake that a third party editor be brought in to be able to address the issue. In 7 days I will proceed with this if no one has any compelling reason that Social Autopsy should not be included and if the Clementi Foundation chooses to continue to ignore the matter and not address it publicly. Removing this comment is not a viable option, this issue will not just go away if ignored.

As an aside, and for clarity; my interest in this stems solely from the academic / legal aspect which is quite compelling an example of criminal negligence. In law, specifically dealing with the tort of negligence, we often use the term 'reasonably foreseeable,' and it is reasonably foreseeable that such a service would be abused, would cause brigading etc., and would lead to bullying campaigns and even further suicides. ESSkull principle and wilful ignorance not mitigating slams that point home. The Clementi Foundation and whoever else is behind Social Autopsy would be unquestionably held to be criminally negligent for a suicide or other real world consequence occurring from their 'service.' It is so black and white I've actually used it as a clear and concise example of criminal negligence in my law classes for my students. Given that the Clementi Foundation is born from the suicide of an individual the fact that one of the primary consequences of their plot is that it will cause extreme bullying and probable suicides beg's belief. I find this entire thing remarkably ironic, and feel that it is the most notable thing to come from the Clementi Foundation in it's short history. &lt;!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 07:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * To be more accurate, your comment was posted to Talk:Suicide of Tyler Clementi; and it was not removed, merely collapsed as I have done above, as it isn't really relevant to changing the content of this article, which is what talk pages are meant for. Do you have a specific change to propose to this article? 331dot (talk) 09:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)